100
C is one of the most energy saving language
(lemmy.world)
If you want top speed, Fortran is faster than C.
Machine energy, definitely not programmer energy ;)
I would argue that because C is so hard to program in, even the claim to machine efficiency is arguable. Yes, if you have infinite time for implementation, then C is among the most efficient, but then the same applies to C++, Rust and Zig too, because with infinite time any artificial hurdle can be cleared by the programmer.
In practice however, programmers have limited time. That means they need to use the tools of the language to save themselves time. Languages with higher levels of abstraction make it easier, not harder, to reach high performance, assuming the abstractions don’t provide too much overhead. C++, Rust and Zig all apply in this domain.
An example is the situation where you need a hash map or B-Tree map to implement efficient lookups. The languages with higher abstraction give you reusable, high performance options. The C programmer will need to either roll his own, which may not be an option if time Is limited, or choose a lower-performance alternative.
I understand your point but come on, basic stuff has been implemented in a thousand libraries. There you go, a macro implementation
And how testable is that solution? Sure macros are helpful but testing and debugging them is a mess
You mean whether the library itself is testable? I have no idea, I didn't write it, it's stable and out there for years.
Whether the program is testable? Why wouldn't it be. I could debug it just fine. Of course it's not as easy as Go or Python but let's not pretend it's some arcane dark art
Yes I mean mocking, faking, et. al. Not this particular library but macros in general
I’m not saying you can’t, but it’s a lot more work to use such solutions, to say nothing about their quality compared to std solutions in other languages.
And it’s also just one example. If we bring multi-threading into it, we’re opening another can of worms where C doesn’t particularly shine.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This doesn't account for all the comfort food the programmer will have to consume in order to keep themselves sane
For those who don't want to open threads, it's a link to a paper on energy efficiency of programming languages.
Results
Also the difference between TS and JS doesn't make sense at first glance. 🤷♂️ I guess I need to read the research.
My first thought is perhaps the TS is not targeting ESNext so they're getting hit with polyfills or something
For Haskell to land that low on the list tells me they either couldn't find a good Haskell programmer and/or weren't using GHC.
Every time I get surprised by the efficiency of Lisp! I guess they mean Common Lisp there, not Clojure or any modern dialect.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Looking at the Energy/Time ratios (lower is better) on page 15 is also interesting, it gives an idea of how "power hungry per CPU cycle" each language might be. Python's very high
WASM would be interesting as well, because lots of stuff can be compiled to it to run on the web
load more comments
(3 replies)
I would be interested in how things like MATLAB and octave compare to R and python. But I guess it doesn't matter as much because the relative time of those being run in a data analysis or research context is probably relatively low compared to production code.
Is there a lot of computation-intensive code being written in pure Python? My impression was that the numpy/pandas/polars etc kind of stuff was powered by languages like fortran, rust and c++.
The popular well crafted ones are, but not all are well crafted.
Wonder what they used for the JS state since it's dependent on the runtime.
load more comments
(13 replies)
Does the paper take into account the energy required to compile the code, the complexity of debugging and thus the required re-compilations after making small changes? Because IMHO that should all be part of the equation.
It's a good question, but I think the amount of time spent compiling a language is going to be pretty tiny compared to the amount of time the application is running.
Still - "energy efficiency" may be the worst metric to use when choosing a language.
Energy efficiency strongly correlates to datacentre costs.
And battery costs, including charging time, for a lot of devices. Users generally aren't happy with devices that run out of juice all the time.
They compile each benchmark solution as needed, following the CLBG guidelines, but they do not measure or report the energy consumed during the compilation step.
Time to write our own paper with regex and compiler flags.
To run perhaps. But what about the same metrics for debugging? How many hours do we spend debugging c/c++ issues?
and in most cases that's not good enough to justify choosing c
I wouldn't justify using any language based on this metric alone.
Ah this ancient nonsense. Typescript and JavaScript get different results!
It's all based on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Computer_Language_Benchmarks_Game
Microbenchmarks which are heavily gamed. Though in fairness the overall results are fairly reasonable.
Still I don't think this "energy efficiency" result is worth talking about. Faster languages are more energy efficient. Who new?
Edit: this also has some hilarious visualisation WTFs - using dendograms for performance figures (figures 4-6)! Why on earth do figures 7-12 include line graphs?
Typescript and JavaScript get different results!
It does make sense, if you skim through the research paper (page 11). They aren't using performance.now() or whatever the state-of-the-art in JS currently is. Their measurements include invocation of the interpreter. And parsing TS involves bigger overhead than parsing JS.
I assume (didn't read the whole paper, honestly DGAF) they don't do that with compiled languages, because there's no way the gap between compiling C and Rust or C++ is that small.
Their measurements include invocation of the interpreter. And parsing TS involves bigger overhead than parsing JS.
But TS is compiled to JS so it's the same interpreter in both cases. If they're including the time for tsc in their benchmark then that's an even bigger WTF.
Microbenchmarks which are heavily gamed
Which benchmarks aren't?
Private or obscure ones I guess.
Real-world (macro) benchmarks are at least harder to game, e.g. how long does it take to launch chrome and open Gmail? That's actually a useful task so if you speed it up, great!
Also these benchmarks are particularly easy to game because it's the actual benchmark itself that gets gamed (i.e. the code for each language); not the thing you are trying to measure with the benchmark (the compilers). Usually the benchmark is fixed and it's the targets that contort themselves to it, which is at least a little harder.
For example some of the benchmarks for language X literally just call into C libraries to do the work.
Private or obscure ones I guess.
Private and obscure benchmarks are very often gamed by the benchmarkers. It's very difficult to design a fair benchmark (e.g chrome can be optimized to load Gmail for obvious reasons. maybe we should choose a more fair website when comparing browsers? but which? how can we know that neither browser has optimizations specific for page X?). Obscure benchmarks are useless because we don't know if they measure the same thing. Private benchmarks are definitely fun but only useful to the author.
If a benchmark is well established you can be sure everyone is trying to game it.
For raw computation, yes. Most programs aren't raw computation. They run in and out of memory a lot, or are tapping their feet while waiting 2ms for the SSD to get back to them. When we do have raw computation, it tends to be passed off to a C library, anyway, or else something that runs on a GPU.
We're not going to significantly reduce datacenter energy use just by rewriting everything in C.
I just learned about Zig, an effort to make a better C compatible language. It's been really good so far, I definitely recommend checking it out! It's early stages for the community, but the core language is pretty developed and is a breath of fresh air compared to C.
Your link links to facebook that links to https://haslab.github.io/SAFER/scp21.pdf
Written in 2021 and not including julia is weird imo. I'm not saying it's faster but one should include it in a comparison.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
100 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
20927 readers
54 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS